Atheism is not logical

[Sideline]

However, I don’t see on the surface of it any obvious flaws either. That’s what other people are for.

Meaning that other people are good for pointing out my obvious flaws, not that other people are where obvious flaws come from.

I just realized that what I said could be taken the wrong way.

 

[freesoulhope]

We are atheists with respect to Martians, unicorns, etc. Since those claims can be made coherently, you must show why the denial of God is unique such that it implies a logical contradiction.

The question of God is unique when such a being is proposed to be the very foundation upon which ***known reality ***is able to exist and can “possibly exist”. In other words, something is only possible in respect to something else existing. God is the “core” of everything from which nothing begets its own being. In this sence God is “Ultimate reality” because such a God is the difference bettween “existence” and “non-existence”. A “Unicorn” is not.

The responsibility would be on me to produce “proof” if it was my “only” intention to say that God exists; but if one reads the first post, i am actually asking a perfectly reasonable scientific question, which the athiest should not hide from; neither should one try and shift the burden of proof without at least having a good go at the question:

This is a redefinition of the original post for everyone: Is the universe “Ultimate reality”? Can the material world “explain itself” based on the scientific evidence? Can the Universe reasonably be the product of its own being; including energy–being the basis? Can the universe expain its own existence without going beyond the “sum of its own parts”?

Good luck. Im not going to hold my breath.

 

[Dranu]

It was supposed to be “unconditional condition”, but I have a feeling it wasn’t the typo that threw you. So let me try it another way.

I don’t think a maximally perfect being exists. Think of the most loving being that could exist, now think of one that loves even more, now even more, now even more, now even more…
You always imagine more, you can always imagine bigger, longer, faster, more loving, smarter, etc.

Of course, I’ve met people who believe this very thing. That God is in constant state of becoming more. But I don’t get the impression that Anselm was one of them.

This needs to be nipped at the bud (though John answers it pretty well). Poor St. Anselm’s argument never seems to be given properly. It is ‘that than which none greater can be conceived’ that exists as an idea. He works from there to prove *‘that than which none greater can be conceived’ *exists in reality. What you are presenting is Guanilo’s (or however you say his name) argument.
God is eternal. He does not change, so there is no bigger bigger thing going on. He is already ‘that than which none greater can be conceived’. Can you think of something greater positive value than positive infinity? Take that and apply that simmilar type of thinking and apply it to ‘that than which none greater can be conceived.’ There’s your answer. St. Anselm’s argument is beautiful!

To be fair, there are any number of beings that are logically necessary according to this logic. I can see the possibility of a number of “Gods” being necessary in this manner. It seems possible to posit Gods which are internally non-contradictory, but conflict with each other.

Oh and you cannot prove anything else like this (like other gods), all you can prove is ‘that than which none greater can be conceived’ exists.

(infinite isn’t a good parallel, it is just to get that type of thinking established)

 

[Dranu]

Why should I believe that there is some supposed ceiling on love? Or greatness?

Just on a side note, most Christian Theology I have heard of does not describe God as the ceiling of love, but love itself, the good itself, etc.